Nobody

[BernardLanguillier]

What a great idea, and a stunning picture (note I didn't say photograph   )! However it's a clumsy, pathetic, and wimpy clone job which does the picture no justice. It may be barely acceptable as a small web picture but is grossly inadequate for a print. Sure—it's obvious that the person who was casting the shadow has been cloned out in post-processing. Still, that's no reason to leave such blunt traces behind which take away a lot of visual impact from the picture.

You may not be an idiot but you behave like one... hiding behind a pathetic avatar.

Cheers,
Bernard

[michael]

Uh, ok...so what is a "photographical picture"? I've heard the term photographic but I've never seen the word photographical...hum, maybe you need to cut your caffeine a bit so you can type straightical...

You mean photographical isn't gramatical? They sound the same. But then so does pathetical.

Michaelical

[Isaac]

Michaelical

Another Michelada!

[Michael West]

photogrpahcial is straight out the Amos N Andy-Bonix lexicon popularized by George Kingfish Stevens who followed the habit of adding an extra syllable to every fifth word in order to appear intellectshull

[Schewe]

photogrpahcial is straight out the Amos N Andy-Bonix lexicon popularized by George Kingfish Stevens who followed the habit of adding an extra syllable to every fifth word in order to appear intellectshull

I thought is it was a Bush'ism...

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Michael,

I hereby grant you my personal permission to have fun now and then.

[Bryan Conner]

I thought is it was a Bush'ism...

haha...I was thinking that it was more like something that Archie Bunker would have said.  Judging by Olaf's comment, I think that you are being a bit hard on old George W.

Michael,  I actually like the image.  You know, I did not even look at it close enough to notice anything wrong with the cloning job.  I looked at the image, laughed, and started thinking of where I could set my tripod up and capture my own shadow.....you inspired me.  So, I say great job.  Now, Olaf has also inspired me.  I will always strive to present myself as an intelligent and caring person to the world....plus, I do not want to ever appear to be a huge idiot.

[01af]

A simple visual joke, done in a deliberately skill-less style ...

Okay. Maybe I do over-interpret the deliberateness o f this 'skill-less style' ... but after all, it would have taken only very slightly more effort to do a significantly better job (in Lightroom, not Photoshop). So I still feel this ostentatious deliberateness is saying something ... something I absolutely don't agree with.

... if you don't like the image, the process, or appreciate the joke it's okay to speak out ...

I thought I was very clear that I do like the image and appreciate the joke. It's the process I am having problems with.

Uh, ok ... so what is a "photographical picture"? I've heard the term photographic but I've never seen the word photographical ...

Sorry if my use (usage? misuse?) of the English language was a bit too, uh, creative here. Maybe 'photographic' would have been better indeed. English is not my native language. I meant: a picture that is no direct photograph but is based on a photograph (or several) ... that is, a significantly 'photoshopped' (or in this case, lightroomed  ) photograph. Umm, picture.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I missed the image completely the first time I saw it, since I thought "Hmmm.. a shadow of a person coming out of a shadow" -
and then I already was a click away but liked the short impression I had (maybe 2 seconds).
I just realized there was a clone out later, after bumping into this thread and then going back again.

This image spans a huge gap - from a joke to something terribly serious.

There exist (or at least have existed) shadows without persons - Hiroshima, Nagasaki ...

But maybe it was meant as an illustration for the "theory of the unseen" by Mark Dubuvoy?

Who knows ... there often is much more in an image than we see on the first look ...

Cheers
~Chris

[michael]

"Who knows ... there often is much more in an image than we see on the first look ..."

And sometimes a lot less.

Michael

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

"Who knows ... there often is much more in an image than we see on the first look ..."

And sometimes a lot less.

Michael

Yup.

And sometimes there is a lot more in a viewer than the image ever intended and sometimes a lot less.
I don't know whats worse - seeing an image published to get over- or underinterpreted or - rated ...
After all we want to be seen (ourselves, our images) right (Whatever we believe is right).

Cheers
~Chris

[01af]

I don't know what's worse—seeing an image published to get over- or underinterpreted or -rated ...

There's no better or worse in this respect. Art is never about what the artist had in mind when creating a piece. It always is about whatever it evokes in the mind of the contemplator. For some pieces of art, these two things are basically the same; for some they intersect; for some they diverge. Many think the latter case is a failure—but I don't think so. Art only fails when it does not touch the beholder in any way. Otherwise it's a success—even when it's not the kind of success the artist originally had in mind.

If a piece of art is poorly executed because the artist suffered from lack of adequate tools, materials, or skills then be it. But if gets poorly executed on purpose because the artist is afraid of his own work then something is going wrong.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

There's no better or worse in this respect. Art is never about what the artist had in mind when creating a piece. It always is about whatever it evokes in the mind of the contemplator. For some pieces of art, these two things are basically the same; for some they intersect; for some they diverge. Many think the latter case is a failure—but I don't think so. Art only fails when it does not touch the beholder in any way. Otherwise it's a success—even when it's not the kind of success the artist originally had in mind.

If a piece of art is poorly executed because the artist suffered from lack of adequate tools, materials, or skills then be it. But if gets poorly executed on purpose because the artist is afraid of his own work then something is going wrong.

I don't think I'd subscribe to that.
Though we don't really have too much influence if what we publish gets understood, adored or abused, I think the artists (conscious or unconscious) intention of course plays a role.
And when I see something, of course its a question for me (beside other questions) what was originally intended.
Of course, art somehow is something which "just happens", but as much as the artist has various sorts of responsibility so to say, the (educated) viewer/recipient has as well.

[Bryan Conner]

There's no better or worse in this respect. Art is never about what the artist had in mind when creating a piece. It always is about whatever it evokes in the mind of the contemplator. For some pieces of art, these two things are basically the same; for some they intersect; for some they diverge. Many think the latter case is a failure—but I don't think so. Art only fails when it does not touch the beholder in any way. Otherwise it's a success—even when it's not the kind of success the artist originally had in mind.

If a piece of art is poorly executed because the artist suffered from lack of adequate tools, materials, or skills then be it. But if gets poorly executed on purpose because the artist is afraid of his own work then something is going wrong.

The ability to interact with others is similar to art.  Sometimes, this art is poorly executed because the "artist" is suffering from a lack of adequate social skills, parental upbringing, or a general disrespect of one's own self worth.  But, sometimes it is a simple case of social ignorance. Sometimes, the inability to interact maturely with others is because the offender is afraid of everyone realizing how incapable he/she is.   I think that one of the biggest indicators of ignorance in a human being is the act of being disrespectful to others. 
There is no need to try to tear down a person on a personal level just because you do not agree with their execution of photographic software tools.  Improve your social skills O1AF and then get back to us with a maturely formed opinion.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

[...]  I think that one of the biggest indicators of ignorance in a human being is the act of being disrespectful to others.  [...]

+100

[kencameron]

What a great idea, and a stunning picture (note I didn't say photograph  )! However it's a clumsy, pathetic, and wimpy clone job which does the picture no justice. It may be barely acceptable as a small web picture but is grossly inadequate for a print. Sure—it's obvious that the person who was casting the shadow has been cloned out in post-processing. Still, that's no reason to leave such blunt traces behind which take away a lot of visual impact from the picture.

Two possible images. One in which there is no trace of the cloning, and then the one published in which the traces are intentionally evident. Both interesting images, in different ways. Why would one have to be right and the other wrong? Not very persuasive for you to say that the leaving of traces takes away visual impact, as it clearly had a strong impact on you, leading to your vehement response. Why so vehement? Apparently, because you thought that leaving the traces was some kind of attack on post-processing. I am not sure that was intended, and I certainly didn't read (see) it that way. Michael says that he intended a joke. He got a big smile from me. If you want to play in this kind of meta-critical game, then maybe you need to take it a bit less seriously.

[jalcocer]

The ability to interact with others is similar to art.  Sometimes, this art is poorly executed because the "artist" is suffering from a lack of adequate social skills, parental upbringing, or a general disrespect of one's own self worth.  But, sometimes it is a simple case of social ignorance. Sometimes, the inability to interact maturely with others is because the offender is afraid of everyone realizing how incapable he/she is.   I think that one of the biggest indicators of ignorance in a human being is the act of being disrespectful to others. 
There is no need to try to tear down a person on a personal level just because you do not agree with their execution of photographic software tools.  Improve your social skills O1AF and then get back to us with a maturely formed opinion.

+100 also